SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision

I actually agree with the Court here, and not just because I am pro-life and religious.  This decision resonates with me politically, regardless the specifics of the issues involved.  Not forcing companies to provide contraceptive coverage is not the same thing as allowing companies to keep employees from accessing said contraceptives.  Condoms, the pill, Plan B, and whatever else you want to use to avoid pregnancy are all readily (and relatively cheaply) available without company contraceptive coverage.  The Court's decision does not keep any of these products off of shelves or out of citizens' reach.

The Court even recognized the importance of making these contraceptives available to Americans.  They just refused to require that a person or company be held responsible for what the government has decided is important. If the government thinks people should have free access to contraceptives, the government should provide it.

In fact, I would argue similarly for universal healthcare. If we believe in what our Declaration of Independence calls the inalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, I argue we owe every American a level of healthcare that supports those rights. But if we also believe in the third listed inalienable right: liberty, we should not force a free man, woman, or enterprise to be responsible for footing the bill of securing individuals' rights.

If voters believe these rights are important, then voters (i.e. taxpayers) should provide for their security.  We should all be responsible for protecting and providing for the unprotected and unprovided-for among us. In effect, Hobby Lobby, by paying taxes, would end up giving its share toward contraceptive coverage, but executives would not be forced specifically to make a choice contrary to their beliefs or preferences.

The way I see it, this is a question not of religious liberty but purely of liberty. The government should not be in the habit of forcing upon individuals its own responsibilities.